problems with prayers (studies in the textual history of early rabbinic liturgy) || 9. notions of...

9

Notions of Restoration

Topic

Scholars invited to explore the expanses of rabbinic prayer in search of the finest samples of a theological product widely defined as 'restoration' might be forgiven for making the 'amidah their first port of call. Given that the 'standing prayer' is generally regarded as the most ancient, central and characteristic of the liturgical formulations promoted by talmudic Judaism, they would rightly expect to find there the most authentic creations of the particular spiritual territory being scoured. Having been safely garnered and packaged, such goods could then be displayed among the variety of wares made available to the consumer in the market for religious notions of such a genre. And the 'amidah would not disappoint such expectations; for there, at the centre of this famous anthology of benedictions, in the eleventh example, one encounters a text that apparently promises precisely what one is seeking and that advertises its potential relevance by the use of the introductory word πτ^π, namely, 'Restore'.

Sample text

Any researcher worth an academic tenure would, of course, be aware that one cannot simply pluck a version from any rabbinic prayer-book and discuss its relevance to the history of Jewish religious ideas in the first Christian millennium. One should rather take as one's starting-point the earliest siddurim, or formal collections of liturgy, acknowledging that these date from the last centuries of that millennium but hoping to find there at least some reflections of the kind of ideology that had established itself among the rabbinic teachers and worshippers of the earlier talmudic period. The prayer-book with the soundest textual witnesses from among these pioneering archetypes is undoubtedly that of Sa'adya Gaon who flourished as the head of the rabbinical school of Sura at the beginning of the tenth century.1 His version of the eleventh benediction would surely then

1 The standard edition is Siddur R. Saadja Goon, eds I. Davidson, S. Assaf and Β. I. Joel, (Jerusalem, 1941, Jerusalem2, 1963). For more recent work, see N. Wieder, The

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 134.99.34.168

Download Date | 3/26/14 11:28 PM

144 Chapter Nine

provide at least an initial guide to what early rabbinic liturgy had to say about the topic of restoration.

The text, to which we shall shortly return in more detail, is simple enough. It appeals to God to restore the people's judges and mentors to their former state and praises the Divine King for loving what is right and just. The matter becomes more complicated when one compares other evidence relating to the benediction, or attesting to its formulation, and dating from that same geonic period or its earlier talmudic counterpart. All at once, we are confronted with phrases that seem to deal with alternative subjects such as the quality of human life and the extent and nature of Divine power. What is more, the talmudic rabbis unusually had no formal title for this benediction and there is no unanimity about the words to be used in the concluding doxology, which often carries the key to understanding the broader context. Indeed, it emerges that there is no consensus about what precisely the whole benediction wishes to see restored. Is it a fair system of theodicy or the elementary punishment of the wicked? Are we looking forward to messianic judgement or the integrity of law-courts? Could there be here a polemic against non-Jewish courts, or against the alleged misjudgements of apostates from Judaism, or sectarians?2

This lack of textual and contextual clarity certainly makes one thing clear. Such liturgical material may not accurately supply the required theological information here being sought quite as readily as we might have supposed. The difficulties about reliably exploiting one small paragraph counsel caution and pause and are symptomatic of a number of methodological problems that have to be noted before any progress can be made in drawing on the rabbinic prayer-book for the history of Jewish religious ideas. That classic source does, of course, provide rich seams of spirituality, philosophy and history but so many movements and disturbances have taken place in their overall structure over the generations that it is no longer an easy matter to identify which was laid down when and how the deposits relate to each other. In order successfully to take on and meet the challenge issued by the topic of this chapter, it will therefore be necessary to offer some comments about where rabbinic liturgy originated and how it was transmitted and modified. Also required will be a tentative explanation

Formation of Jewish Liturgy in the East and the West: A Collection of Essays (Hebrew; 2 vols; Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 561-658; R. Brody, 'Saadya Gaon on the limits of liturgical flexibility' in Genizah Research after Ninety Years, eds J. Blau and S. C. Reif (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 40-46; and R. Brody, 'The conclusion of Se'adya Gaon's prayerbook', Tarbiz 63 (1994), pp. 393-401 and 'Note on the conclusion of Se'adya Gaon's prayerbook', Tarbiz 68 (1999), pp. 279-81.

2 See text and translation of no. 3 below. See also, more generally, chapter 16 below.



Notions of Restoration 145

of the ideological background against which liturgical subject matter was played out and a brief assessment of the degree to which it is feasible firmly to attach particular ideas to specific periods in a clearly definable, diachronic development. Such methodological consider-ations are intended to lay the foundations for a justification of the manner in which the topic is subsequently treated and the conclusions thereby reached.

Early rabbinic transmission

One of the over-riding paradoxes about talmudic literature is that, while it provides an extensive and authentic expression of the rabbinic Judaism that became so powerful in the first few Christian centuries, its very success in that respect has contributed to obscuring the manner in which it was achieved. In earlier and later periods of Jewish religious development, we are able to identify layers of development, competing interpretations and a broader context in which they operated, largely because the literature sub-divides itself for us and there is much external material with which to compare it. As far as the talmudic period is concerned, the numerous clusters of traditions, variegated though they are in respect of attribution, style, subject and intent, have been fused into one mass. Through a long process of transmission and redaction, the generations of the learned and the loyal have ensured that the body of texts that has become for them almost canonical in its status and importance has also acquired a style and flavour of its own. Inbuilt into the system has been a tendency to harmonize its constituents and to present its contents as uniform and authoritative, the sole representative of the Jewish religious tradition in the Classical and Byzantine eras.3

This presents particular difficulties in the field of liturgy. Although there is still evidence in the talmudic sources that the Babylonian and Palestinian communities followed different liturgical customs, it is

3 Some discussion of the major problems may be found in The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden, 1970); The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, eds S. Safrai and M. Stern (2 vols; Assen and Philadelphia, 1974-76); The Literature of the Sages. First Part: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, ed. S. Safrai (Assen, Maastricht and Philadelphia, 1987); H. Maccoby, Early Rabbinic Writings (Cambridge, 1988); Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder (Assen and Philadelphia, 1988); J. Sussmann and D. Rosenthal, πεΛτη D'npna pip πνΛη 'ΐρπη •'Vau o'Dinm (Jerusalem, 1990-93); G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Ε. T., Edinburgh, 1996); Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, eds W. D. Davies, J. Sturdy and W. Horbury (Cambridge, 1999).



146 Chapter Nine

often difficult to identify the precise differences because of the manner in which the later, usually Babylonian, customs have come to dominate the relevant texts. Since there is no longer any doubt that the diaspora synagogues in the broader Graeco-Roman world followed their own traditions in such areas as language, iconography and administration, it is highly unlikely that their prayer-texts fully matched those of their Babylonian counterparts.4 Sadly, however, there is little evidence to indicate the precise nature of their devotions. Furthermore, the very nature of liturgy conspires with these historical and theological considerations to add to the problem. The recitation of prayers is no mere theory of religion; it is an active and dynamic element in rabbinic practice, familiar to a large proportion of the adherents to the faith, for many of them on a daily, or at least a weekly basis. Traditions that incorporate liturgical formulas of earlier or distant communities are therefore inevitably prone to alteration and standardization in the light of the experience and commitments of those who inherit and transmit them.

There is another factor that further complicates matters and was even perhaps integral to the emergence, expansion and success of the rabbinic tradition. The medium for that tradition's message was primarily an oral one. While other Jews had opted for the written form, the rabbinic communities preferred to pass on their talmudic and related traditions by word of mouth, perhaps in an effort to distinguish the Oral Torah from the Written Torah, perhaps to retain a unique and powerful educational experience. This is not to say that there was no process of editing. Textual interpretations and legal discussions had for centuries been acquiring an increasingly formal structure but there is no reason to suppose that such a structure could not be adopted and developed without recourse to writing. Oral transmission was seen as a special feature of the revelation to Israel and there was a serious suspicion that a commitment to writing was a betrayal of the authentic historical experience. It therefore follows that, in spite of the care taken to pass on the traditions in a sound form, there was still a considerable degree of fluidity in all the texts being orally transmitted.5

4 For recent treatments of these and related topics, see L. A. Hoffman, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service (Notre Dame and London, 1979); P. F. Bradshaw and L. A. Hoffman (eds), The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship (Notre Dame and London, 1991) and The Changing Face of Jewish and Christian Worship (Notre Dame and London, 1991); S. C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge, 1993); L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven and London, 2000).

5 For aspects of the history of Jewish books and scribes and the importance of orality, see The Hebrew Book: An Historical Survey, eds R. Posner and I. Ta-Shma (Jerusalem, 1975); M. Beit-Arie, Hebrew Codicology: Tentative Typology of Technical Practices




Given that there is an almost total absence of Hebrew manuscripts between the second and the ninth centuries - a phenomenon that may not be accidental but may relate to the strength of the oral tradition just noted - we can only speculate about the nature of written liturgy in the late talmudic and early geonic periods. We do, however, have some talmudic traditions that permit us to derive some technical information. Until the eighth century, the individual folio, made of papyrus, leather, or possibly cloth, was the main writing material for any rabbinic liturgical text that did achieve such formal recognition. Alternatively, a less strictly controlled version of the scroll than that in use for the Hebrew Bible might have been employed. When, in, say, the ninth and tenth centuries, the codex became the fashionable medium for talmudic Jews, at first with the use of papyrus or vellum but later exclusively with vellum, it contained a few gatherings simply stitched together, tended to be of a small, manageable size, and perhaps, like a scroll, was written only on one side. While individual folios, whether or not joined, continued to be classified as diphthera, the scroll form was known as gewil, and the later Arabic term for the bound volume, namely, mushaf, was eventually adopted by the Jews of the Orient to describe what is more generally familiar to western scholarship as the codex.6

Employed in Hebrew Dated Medieval Manuscripts (Jerusalem2, 1981); S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, 5 vols and index volume (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1967-93), vol. 2 (1971), pp. 228-40; S. C. Reif, 'Aspects of mediaeval Jewish literacy' in The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 134-55; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Lund and Copenhagen, 1961; republished with a new preface by the author and a foreword by J. Neusner, together with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids and Livonia, Michigan, 1998); M. J. Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study in Medieval Culture (Cambridge, 1990); and W. A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge, 1987; paperback edition, 1993).

6 Information about the Jewish adoption and use of the codex may be found in S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B. C. E. - TV Century C. E. (New York2, 1962), pp. 203-9; E. G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia, 1977); C. M. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London2, 1983); R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, 'Codicology, Western European' in Dictionary of the Middle Ages (New York, 1982-89), vol. 3 (1983), pp. 475-78; M. Beit-Arie, 'How Hebrew manuscripts are made' in A Sign and a Witness: 2,000 years of Hebrew Books and Illustrated Manuscripts, ed. L. S. Gold (New York and Oxford, 1988), pp. 35-46; I. M. Resnick, 'The codex in early Jewish and Christian communities', JRH 17 (1992), pp. 1-17. Papyrus is still used for some of the older Genizah material (e.g. Cambridge MS T-S 6H9-21) and there are also examples of cloth being used for the recording of texts (e.g. T-S 16.31). See also C. Sirat, Les Papyrus en Caracteres Hebraxques trouves en Egypte (Paris, 1985) and her brief note on T-S 6H9-21 in Genizah Fragments 5 (April, 1983), pp. 3-4. The



148 Chapter Nine

Although the use of the codex was ultimately destined to have a revolutionary effect on many aspects of the rabbinic liturgy, including its size, content and status, the primary purpose of the prayer-text at that early stage was to provide the basic wording, some rubrics for its use, and also possibly some sort of justification for its being chosen out of the many alternatives still circulating. Perhaps the small, primitive and rather fully covered sheets of vellum precluded any additional attention, or perhaps there was still doubt about the use of a written format. Certainly, there are responsa that appear to testify that the issue of orality versus textuality was still a live one in the eighth and ninth centuries. What is particularly important and noteworthy for us in our present discussion is that such physical developments encouraged a number of literary and liturgical ones. As it became more common to write down the rabbinic traditions, including the prayers, in a respectful and systematic manner, so the tendency grew to regard such texts as having something of a canonical nature. The single leaf evolved into the codex, the private individual became the professional scribe, and brief and provisional notes evolved into formal prayer-books.7

Methodological aspects

How do such considerations affect this examination of the topic of restoration? What I propose to do is to examine a few of the major benedictions that are of relevance to the subject and to compare their textual formats, as derived from the authoritative talmudic and geonic sources, with those found in the less conformist Genizah fragments. I shall refrain from presupposing that all short, simple Babylonian texts represent the pristine form while all longer, more complex Palestinian versions (from the Genizah, for example) may universally be judged to be later accretions. Rather than confidently (but unjustifiably) associating specific formulations with particular places and periods, I shall adopt a less speculative approach that simply gives an account of the textual options that existed. Since I subscribe to the view that most liturgical variants convey a meaningful religious message of some sort,

pentateuchal codex was known to the oriental Jews as mashaf torah, as in e.g. T-S 12.791, or mashaf de-'orayta, as in e.g. T-S A41.41.

7 S. C. Reif, 'Codicological aspects of Jewish liturgical history', BJRULM 75/3 (1993), pp. 117-31, and 'The Genizah and Jewish liturgy: past achievements and a current project', Medieval Encounters 5.1 (1999), pp. 29^45. For a fuller Hebrew version of the relevant part of the latter, see Reif, 'Written prayers from the Genizah: their physical aspect and its relationship to their content' in From Qumran to Cairo: Studies in the History of Prayer, ed. J. Tabory (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 121-30. For an updated treatment of the broader topic, see chapter 11 below.




I shall also attempt to summarize the theological import of each version. Once the data have been analysed in this way, it should be possible to draw some general conclusions of assistance to the historian of religious ideas.8

But none of these ideas came into existence or continued to operate in a liturgical or theological vacuum. With regard to liturgy, it is not only important to take account of the developments in the geonic and medieval periods as they are well reflected in the prayer-books during the period that they crystallized, expanded and became authoritative. Attention has also to be paid to the earlier sources from which the rabbinic prototypes seem to have been drawn or by which their content was apparently inspired during the Second Temple period. The evidence from Qumran makes it clear that there were groups who recited regular prayers at specific times but there is no obvious consistency of text and context for these. There are written texts from Qumran that record such prayers and they have elements in common with the rabbinic liturgy of the second Christian century, even if the latter ultimately chose to transmit them in oral form. Given the breadth of the liturgical material found at Qumran, there was clearly more than one provenance for the development of hymns and prayers during the Second Temple period. Rabbinic prayer, borrowing from such contexts, incorporates earlier material but imposes upon it a fresh order, style and distinctive formulation. This innovative aspect reflects the traditions of early talmudic Judaism and its own approach to the Hebrew language and to the biblical canon.9

On the theological side, the notion of restoration belongs to the broader notion of visions of the future and talmudic literature has its share of these, even if it cannot fairly be argued that they enjoyed a central role or were consistently and systematically conceived and expressed. Some of the ideas concerned individuals and how they were to be rescued from life's various vicissitudes, to see justice done, and to be blessed with a good quality of life. That was at the mundane and more immediate level while in the more idealized and Utopian future, they could look forward to a time when their souls, perhaps more collectively than individually, would experience the ultimate reward of the good and punishment of the wicked, as well as eternal bliss and the resurrection of the dead. Other concepts were even more nationally oriented and concerned the re-establishment of the royal, cultic and political institutions and the return of the Jews from the countries of their diaspora to their holy land. Such hopes could constitute realistic

8 See chapter 7 above. 9 See chapter 4 above.



150 Chapter Nine

expectations of developments not to be long delayed or could be of a more eschatological nature. In that case, the messianic figure became more spiritualized, the atmosphere took on a more apocalyptic hue, and the events included war and catastrophe before leading to a satisfactory theological denouement.10

'Amidah texts

If we may now return to the 'amidah, the first point to be made is that this anthology of benedictions contains entreaties for the return of supposedly ideal situations at the personal as well as the national level. The famous rabbinic scholar of eleventh-century France, Rashi (= Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac) demonstrates an awareness of this in his comments on a talmudic passage dealing with these benedictions. In response to Rava's claim that redemption is the subject of the seventh benediction because the ultimate redemption will occur in the sabbatical year, Rashi stresses that such an interpretation is justified only because the Hebrew root is used in both cases but not because it refers to the same kind of redemption or rescue in each case. In the seventh benediction, the prayer is for God to rescue us from our constant and mundane tribulations while the ultimate redemption will gather us in from our exile, rebuild Jerusalem and re-establish the royal house of David. These three subjects are treated in a different section of the 'amidah and are each accorded an independent benediction.11 Taking our lead from Rashi, it will, in this presentation, be more appropriate for us to deal with those benedictions in which the restoration touches on very specific developments rather than alluding more broadly to better times and conditions. Each benediction will be identified, cited in Hebrew from the tenth-century text of R. Sa'adya Gaon, given my own English rendering, compared with other versions, and analysed for the relevant theological content.

1. Daily 'amidah, second benediction, known as n m i ) :

Hebrew text •moK τη»ϊ η^ιπ ran d o t o w n trna π'π» i o m D"n W d ö y^nn1? m n^y1? t d j nnx γγπώ ν η πτιατ rran ι1? πώττ im ηιτπι itod ή ίββ ^w1? irmax D^pm dmton1? ivtrai

•ΤΙΏΓΤ

10 For a most useful and informative treatment of the relevant theology to be found in early rabbinic sources, see Ε. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Ε. T., 2 vols; Jerusalem, 1975), 1.649-92, and 2.990-1009.

11 See BT, Megillah 17b, where the 'amidah benedictions are discussed, and Rashi's comments on that passage.



Notions of Restoration 1 5 1

English translation Your miraculous powers are eternal, Lord, and are exercised in many ways. [In winter: You make the wind blow and the rain fall.] You generously sustain the living and most mercifully restore the dead to life. You cure the sick, release the captive and support the poor. He keeps his promise to those who sleep in the dust. W h o is like you, Master of such powers, and who m a y be compared to you, bringer of death and restorer of life? You are praised, Lord, as the restorer of the dead to life.1 2

T h e t h e m e of this b e n e d i c t i o n is that G o d a l o n e h a s t h e spec ia l p o w e r of b r i n g i n g a b o u t c h a n g e s in t h o s e a s p e c t s of life t h a t a r e of ten c o n s i d e r e d u n c o n t r o l l a b l e a n d that c a n bring, at t h e v e r y least, c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c o m f o r t , a n d at t h e w o r s t , v a r i o u s d e g r e e s of t r a g e d y . T h e s i m p l e s t f o r m s of t h e b e n e d i c t i o n refer t o G o d ' s e x e r c i s e of his p o w e r t h r o u g h his p r o v i s i o n of ra in a n d f o o d a n d his r e s t o r a t i o n of life to t h e d e a d . T h e m o s t e x t e n s i v e f o r m s of t h e b e n e d i c t i o n i n c l u d e r e p e t i t i o n s of t h e t h e m e s of p o w e r a n d res tora t ion , a n d i n c l u d e a m o n g t h e e x a m p l e s t h e t h w a r t i n g of t y r a n n y a n d o p p r e s s i o n a n d (unless p h r a s e s s u c h as d ^ d u ηηιο a n d D'DiDS ηριτ a r e m e t a p h o r i c a l ) the r e s t o r a t i o n of p h y s i c a l n o r m a l i t y . 1 3 If d u e a c c o u n t is t a k e n of t h e title of the b e n e d i c t i o n , t h e o r d e r of the c o n t e n t s a n d t h e n a t u r e of t h e t h e m e s m e n t i o n e d , it s e e m s m o r e likely that t h e abili ty t o r e s t o r e t h e d e a d to life w a s a d d e d to a b e n e d i c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h G o d ' s o v e r a l l p o w e r s t h a n vice versa. If t h a t is a v a l i d conclusion , it w o u l d b e r e a s o n a b l e to

12 Siddur R. Saadja (see η. 1 above), p. 18; S. Baer, Seder 'Avodat Yisra'el (Rödelheim, 1868), p. 89; Siddur 0$ar Ha-Tefillot, ed. A. L. Gordon (corrected and expanded edition, Vilna, 1923, Hebrew pagination), pp. 156b-159a.

13 S. Schechter, 'Genizah specimens: liturgy', JQR 10 (1898), p. 656; I. Elbogen, German edition = G, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Frankfurt am Main, 1931; reprint, Hildesheim, 1962), pp. 27-41 and 44-45; Hebrew edition = H, rmiBD'nn nrmnsnm "?i<w:i rfrsnn (eds J. Heinemann, I. Adler, A. Negev, J. Petuchowski and H. Schirmann, Tel Aviv, 1972), pp. 20-32 and 34-35; English edition = E, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (English translation and edition by R. P. Scheindlin, Philadelphia, Jerusalem and New York,1993), pp. 24-37 and 39; J. Mann, 'Genizah fragments of the Palestinian order of service/ HUCA 2 (1925), pp. 306, 309-10, reprinted in Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy (ed. J. J. Petuchowski, New York, 1970), pp. 416, 419-20; L. Finkelstein, 'The development of the amidah', JQR, NS 16 (1925), pp. 142-45; L. Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud (4 vols; New York, 1941 and 1961), vol. 4, ed. D. Weiss-Halivni, pp. 164-68, 184-91; S. Assaf, 'Mi-seder ha-tefillah be-Eres Yisra'el' in Sefer Dinaburg, eds Y. Baer, J. Guttmann and M. Shova (Jerusalem, 1949), p. 117; J. Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tanna'im and Amora'im: Its Nature and Its Patterns (Hebrew; Jerusalem2, 1966), pp. 31, 40-41; revised English edition, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (Berlin and New York, 1977), pp. 26-29, 58; B. S. Jacobson, Netiv Binah (Hebrew; 5 vols; Tel Aviv, 1968-83), 1.273-74; E. Fleischer, Eretz-Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals as Portrayed in the Geniza Documents (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 35-36, n. 52; Y. Luger, The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 53-62.



152 Chapter Nine

postulate that the concluding doxology did not originally refer to the restoration theme but to God's miraculous powers. Whatever the chronology of the themes, they are all included here as examples of what are to be regarded here and now as the divine characteristics. When and how they are or will be demonstrated is another matter.

2. Daily 'amidah, tenth benediction, known as nrin fiup:

Hebrew text

"7S1B" v m p p a w nnx i n n imp 1 ? rnna DJ ran wvrrn 1 ?Vm "raw Bpn

English translation Sound a powerful horn for our freedom and raise a speedy banner for our ingathering. You are praised, Lord, as the one who gathers in the exiles of his people Israel.14

This benediction constitutes an entreaty to God to bring about the end of the Jewish people's captivity and exile and the restoration of their unity. The briefer versions simply record these two pleas, sometimes omitting the mention of the people of Israel in the concluding doxology while those that have a more extensive text refer to the current dispersion over the four corners of the earth and pray for a joyous, swift and liberated journey of return. The longer forms also use an imperative verb (ΐίχπρ) and refer specifically, not just metaphorically, to a restoration to Israel's own land and to God's holy habitation.15 There are strong grounds for presupposing that the simple liturgical formulation of a request for the re-strengthening of the population of the homeland as against its dissipation into a growing diaspora could have been made at any time during the Second Temple period. The inclusion of certain additional factors in the benediction does, however, indicate other considerations. The use of more powerful words such as •TIT] and τητπ point in the direction of a political restoration. The special status given to the land and the cultic centre conveys a spiritual message. The metaphorical language used to describe the beginning of the restoration is more reminiscent of a prophetic vision than of a request for an imminent change of situation.

14 Siddur R. Saadja (see η. 1 above), p. 18; Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 12 above), p. 92; Osar Ha-Tefillot (see n. 12 above), pp. 333-35.

15 Schechter, 'Genizah specimens', p. 657; Elbogen, G, p. 50; H, p. 39; E, pp. 44-45; Mann, 'Palestinian order of service', pp. 296, 306, 309-10; Finkelstein, 'The development of the amidah', pp. 12-15, 154-55; Ginzberg, Palestinian Talmud, vol. 3, pp. 324-25; Assaf, 'Mi-seder ha-tefillah', p. 118; Jacobson, Nefro Binah, 1.281-82; Luger, Weekday 'Amidah, pp. 114-18. For fuller sources see n. 13 above.




3. Daily 'amidah, eleventh benediction, with no talmudic title:

Hebrew text

ostrai πριχ 3ms η1?»ππκ inn rftnnnn nniwos iroDW rn'wn

English translation Restore our judges as they first were and our mentors as they were at the outset. You are praised as the King who is devoted to what is right and just.16

What is here being requested is the restoration of some sort of pristine state in which correct judgements are made by those of the Jewish people with special responsibilities for such activities. Such correct judgements are given the stamp of divine approval by being linked in the doxological conclusion with the kind of qualities to which God is himself partial. The body of the benediction as recorded by Sa'adya Gaon is as short as it occurs anywhere but the epithets used to describe God at its end may well have been simpler in origin, referring to him as no more than a devotee (nmx) or a king of DDU?Ü. The longer versions of the benediction include references to the removal of sorrow, to the eternal reign of God, and to just rulership.17 It will be recalled that we had reason to note the contents of this benediction at an earlier point in the discussion and to draw attention to the fact that there was no consensus at any stage among the commentators as to their general import. It is not and was not clear which judges and judgements (or misjudgements) the worshipper has in mind; whether the ideology being promoted is theological or juridical; and at what point in time the expected improvement is to be expected. In that case, each phrase that is not found in the most skeletal format of the benediction may represent an attempt at interpreting at least part of its basic sense vis-a-vis what the future should hold. The fact that later developments tended to include all or most of these by no means proves that they originally stood together as a unified testimony to one particular notion of restoration. 4. Daily 'amidah, fourteenth benediction, known as trVwiT nm:

Hebrew text rum ιτηπ ptra ivs "?sn ins?» "?yi i ^ n Vyi t t o α^οητ iny ^n-iu" bv tp1?» irn1?«111 a m

D,1?B>TT R U M ™ NNS I N N D^UN-P NX ταπ-ο

16 Siddur R. Saadja (see n. 1 above), p. 18; Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 12 above), pp. 92-93, Osar Ha-Tefillot (see n. 12 above), pp. 335-36. See Isaiah 1:26 for the biblical source of the phraseology.

17 Schechter, 'Genizah specimens', p. 657; Elbogen, G, pp. 50-55; H, pp. 39-40; E, p. 45; Mann, 'Palestinian order of service', pp. 306, 309-310; Finkelstein, 'The development of the amidah', pp. 14-15, 154-55; Ginzberg, Palestinian Talmud, vol. 3, pp. 325-29; Assaf, 'Mi-seder ha-tefillah', p. 118; Heinemann, Prayer (see n. 13 above), Hebrew edition, p. 141; English edition, pp. 223-24; Jacobson, Netiv Binah, 1.282-83; Luger, Weekday Amidah, pp. 119-32. For fuller sources see n. 13 above.



154 Chapter Nine

English translation Show mercy, Lord, our God, to us, to your people Israel, to your city Jerusalem, to your temple, to your habitation, and to Zion, your esteemed residence, and mercifully build Jerusalem. You are praised, Lord, as the builder of Jerusalem.18

What is here being requested is a change of divine sentiment towards the Jews and their special centre in Jerusalem that will lead to its being rebuilt. The simplest form of the benediction prays for God's return to Jerusalem and links this with its physical restoration. In the more complex varieties of the entreaty, reference is made to some or all of a number of associated bodies, such as the worshippers, the Jewish people, the city and the Temple, the last two being described by a variety of poetic epithets. Some texts look forward to a speedy restoration while others are more concerned with its permanency, and there are some references to the people returning joyfully to the holy city. As is well known, the benediction for the Davidic dynasty (next to be discussed below) is not always included in texts of the 'amidah. In some witnesses it is replaced by a brief reference to that subject in this benediction for Jerusalem, with or without a specific mention of the messianic element, and in others it appears both here and independently. Where it does appear here, the concluding doxology may also refer to God as the God of David as well as the builder of Jerusalem.19 Given the variety of its textual format, there is no clarity in the overall benediction as to the precise geography, chronology and theology of what is to be restored. Is the stress on the rebuilt, physical city of the near future and its repopulation by the Jews, or on the reconstructed Temple of the idealized messianic age and the bliss this will bring to those who participate in the restored cult?

18 Siddur R. Saadja (see η. 1 above), p. 18; Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 12 above), p. 96; Osar Ha-Tefillot (see n. 12 above), pp. 339-40.

19 Schechter, 'Genizah specimens', pp. 657, 659; Elbogen, G, pp. 52-54; H, pp. 41^12; E, pp. 47-48; Mann, 'Palestinian order of service', pp. 306, 309-310; Finkelstein, 'The development of the amidah', pp. 33-38, 158-59; Ginzberg, Palestinian Talmud, vol. 3, pp. 329-30; Assaf, 'Mi-seder ha-tefillah', p. 118; Heinemann, Prayer (see n. 13 above), Hebrew edition, pp. 3 5 ^ 0 , 48-51, English edition, pp. 48-56, 70-76, 288-91 and Studies in Jewish Liturgy, ed. A. Shinan (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1981; originally published in Hayyim (Jefim) Schirmann Jubilee Volume, eds S. Abramson and A. Mirsky, Jerusalem, 1970, pp. 93-101), pp. 3-11; Luger, Weekday Amidah, pp. 150-58; Jacobson, Netiv Binah, 1.285-86. For fuller sources see n. 13 above, and chapter 7 above. See U. Ehrlich, 'On the ancient version of the benediction 'Builder of Jerusalem' and the benediction of David' (Hebrew), Pe'amim 78 (1999), pp. 16-43 and his edition of some Genizah fragments of the Palestinian rite in Kobez Al Yad 19 [29] (2006), pp. 1-22; see also Tosefta Berakhot 3.25, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 9.




5. Daily 'amidah, fifteenth benediction, with no talmudic title: Hebrew text

row ·ρρ rraxn nnx -ρ-α ηη»ΐΒ"3 ΟΉΠ mpi rraxn nra τ η nas m English translation Now make the offspring of David flourish and raise his head high by granting your succour. You are praised, Lord, as the one who generates pride by granting succour.20

In those cases in which manuscripts testify to an independent benediction - and they are by no means a small proportion - the message is brief and direct, even if the precise meaning and immediate relevance is not obvious. As expressed, the benediction calls for a proud and successful Davidic dynasty and the textual variations are generally minor. The pronoun ΠΠΧ replaces the adverb nra; there are disagreements about the inclusion of a conjunctive waw; there is doubt whether a qal or hiph'il form is to be used with the verb Din; and some texts hope that the request may be met swiftly. Perhaps more significantly, one version includes, immediately before the doxological conclusion, an expression of the people's continuous longing for divine succour. Interestingly, that concluding formula unexpectedly makes no mention whatsoever of David but appears to concentrate on the broader notion of succour.21 It is not our present task to argue whether the one benediction has here become two, or vice versa, but rather to identify what the issues might have been that could conceivably have led to a move in one direction or the other. If the entreaty here is for the successful continuation of what is seen as Davidic leadership, it is a request for the here and now and an expression of support for, say, the Patriarch in Palestine or the Exilarch in Babylon. If this were regarded as central, it might warrant its own benediction. If a restoration of national institutions is the theme, it would fit well with that version of the previous benediction that listed a number of these and looked forward to the (perhaps distant?) future in which they would recur in what might be a form more splendid than ever. If the benediction were to remain independent, it might opt for a more general and less Davidic or messianic theme, as appears to have occurred in the case of the concluding doxology.

20 Siddur R. Saadja (see η. 1 above), p. 18; Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 12 above), p. 97; Osar Ha-Tefillot (see n. 12 above), p. 341.

21 Elbogen, G p. 54; H, p. 42; E, pp. 48-49; Mann, 'Palestinian order of service', pp. 300, 310; Finkelstein, 'The development of the amidah', p. 160; Ginzberg, Palestinian Talmud, vol. 3, pp. 277-79; Heinemann, Prayer (see n. 13 above), Hebrew edition, pp. 37, 140; English edition, pp. 52-53, 222; Jacobson, Netiv Binah, 1.287; Y. Liebes, 'Mazmiah qeren yeshu'ah', Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1983-84), pp. 3 1 3 ^ 8 and the subsequent discussion in 4 (1984-85), pp. 181-217 and 341-54; Fleischer, Eretz-Israel Prayer, p. 19, n. 3, p. 181; Luger, Weekday Amidah, pp. 159-65. For fuller sources see n. 13 above.



156 Chapter Nine

6. Daily 'amidah, seventeenth benediction, known as m u s :

Hebrew text ηϊΊ1? xnm f u r a V^pn an^sm Vioii" • toi i m T 3 f ? m u y ηι^πι • r t s r a i isyn irn^N ·,•,·, nm wow ττπώπ nnx -|ra rx 1031:3 runm crarra ira1? 13W3 irr» nrmm γπόβ τ»η

TPs'?

English translation Find favour, Lord, our God, in your people and in their prayer, and restore the ritual to the centre of your shrine. Accept as favourable the offerings and prayers of Israel and may Israel's ritual always be favourable. May we witness your merciful return to Zion and may you favour us as you did in the past. You are praised, Lord, as (the one) who restores his divine presence to Zion.22

This first of the last three benedictions that are standard in all 'amidah prayers deals with Israel's worship of God and the special relationship it enjoys with him. The plea is that the worship should be unflawed and efficacious and that God should assist this process by restoring his presence to Zion. In the shorter version, God is asked to dwell in Zion and the plea made that his servants should serve him there and that the reciters of the prayer should worship him in Jerusalem. The final request is that God should mercifully take delight in them and favour them and the doxological conclusion praises God as the one to whom the worshippers will direct their ritual. The longer version, for its part, requests divine favour for his people Israel and the restoration of the Temple ritual. This request is then expanded to include their prayers as well as their offerings, the body of the benediction concluding with a vision of the return of God to Zion, this theme being repeated in the doxological conclusion. There are, in addition, colourful, poetic expansions that refer to the restoration of a pristine Jerusalem and the details of the sacrificial process to be conducted there.23 What emerges is that there is a group of texts that place the stress on what appears to be the current or immediate continuation of the Temple cult

22 Siddur R. Saadja (see η. 1 above), p. 19; Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 12 above), p. 98; Osar Ha-Tefillot (see n. 12 above), pp. 345^16.

23 Schechter, 'Genizah specimens', p. 657; Elbogen, G, pp. 55-57; H, pp. 43-44; E, pp. 50-51; Mann, 'Palestinian order of service', pp. 306-307, 309-10; Finkelstein, 'The development of the amidah', pp. 162-64; Ginzberg, Geonica (2 vols; New York, 1909), 1.107, 119; Heinemann, Prayer (see n. 13 above), Hebrew edition, pp. 52, 57-58, 6 3 -64, English edition, pp. 77, 87, 98-100; Jacobson, Netiv Binah, 1.289-91; Fleischer, Eretz-Israel Prayer, pp. 34-43, 63, 72-73, 76, 309, n. 71 and 'Le-nusah birkat ha-avodah', Sinai 60 (1966), pp. 269-75; Luger, Weekday Amidah, pp. 173-83. For fuller sources see n. 13 above. See also U. Ehrlich, 'The earliest version of the amidah - The blessing about the temple worship' in From Qumran to Cairo (see n. 7 above), pp. 17-38, and his edition of some Genizah fragments of the Palestinian rite in Kobez Al Yad 19 [29] (2006), pp. 1-22.




accompanied by God's presence in the holy city and his approval and that are predicated upon the concluding principle that he alone should be worshipped. An alternative set of versions is more centrally concerned with the extension of the concept of worship to the area of communal prayer but also refers to the restoration of God's presence to Zion at its conclusion. There is therefore something of a paradox here in that the final theme fails to match the central concern of the previous text.

7. Festival 'amidah for musaf service, fourth (central) benediction:

Hebrew text mx-fr m"?»1? I ID1 ux TW unaix "jya prnrai nmxa o1'?! irxm nsa 'ON vftio ιτη^χ nrfrrmti' τη vbv xnp: -pu* nnx ΊΒ>Ν onipm Vnin rrm "ΐητπ3 ΓΡ33 I D1? ninn^n1? DOT -parra u^yi i^y arnm 3iB>nu> 3py -f7a larnn 3X irn^x 111 -pâ γιχ-ι ή1 iîpan INP •'Π "73 Ty1? NTWM ysin mna IR'ro irroâ Π1?! irn1?« mâ I:T3N ITQD VINN mna mum ntOT:i aVw nnauo -pry a ^ I T 1 ? ! nra ITS'? WARN FIX TDTB D:D IRMXISIN a un paa U-MS lrVy 3W ιΛ βηιπ 3'Qai 310 -φ nnyn mtra^ iâ irVy nm iarn iâ ...i:ri3in pnp "imd1? iri33 umn ima "?» lunpa rix pi3 n nnna irra n:3 iran nx itiw i r n m Vm Tarn iiam inu Vx ^xnti" awn mar1?! rn^1? a « ^ array1? a'ro f?y 131η1? nr3u> ττπη -mpm •unau'

. . .nm a'ays un1?!? tud1? nxtn n"?y: at 3U" rasâ "?y panxi an"?m x i n w raun

English translation Our God, and the God of our fathers, for our sins we have been exiled from our land and removed far from our territory so that we are unable to come up and appear before you at worship in your chosen abode, in the great and holy house to which your own name is attached, because of the power that has occupied your sanctuary. May it be your will, Lord, our God, merciful father, king of Jacob, that you once again show great mercy to it and to us and that you rebuild it speedily with increased esteem. Our divine and royal father, quickly restore your rulership over us and appear exalted in the eyes of all the living. Bring back as a symbolic act from the ends of the earth those of us who are scattered and dispersed among the nations. Bring us to Zion with rejoicing and to your city Jerusalem with eternal happiness so that we can bring you the required offering... Merciful king, show mercy to us; king of the universe, respond to our plea; model of all that is good, meet our request and return to us in your abundant mercy for the sake of our fathers who acted as you wished. Build your house as it was at first, reconstruct your sanctuary in its true form, grant us the sight of its restoration. Gladden us through its restoration and bring back the divine presence within it. Let the priests ascend to their worship and the levites to their song and their music. Repatriate Israel to where it belongs and the tribes of Yeshurun to their inheritance and let the divine abode be occupied in the rightful manner. We shall then go up and appear there before you three times a year... 24

24 Siddur R. Saadja (see η. 1 above), pp. 151-52: Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 12 above), pp. 347-56; Osar Ha-Tefillot (see n. 12 above), pp. 913-28.



158 Chapter Nine

The basic themes common to the various versions of this benediction are the restoration of God's exclusive rulership over his people Israel and the demonstration of his power to the world at large; the joyous return of the Jewish exiles from various parts of the world to Jerusalem and to the Temple; and the people's appearance and cultic participation at the Temple in accordance with the ancient pilgrim rite. The shorter version, such as that generally to be found in texts demonstrating allegiance to the Palestinian rite, adds to the future vision a universal acknowledgement of God's sovereignty supported by the use of part of a verse from Psalms 103:19 ('God's royal authority will be established throughout the world'), as well as poetic embellishments of the manner in which the restoration will be experienced. There are also some textual variants in which more specific reference is made to the joyous rebuilding of an eternal Zion and the glorious appearance of God in Jerusalem.25

The prayer entitled ya'aleh we-yavo also appears in this version and, although it seems more concerned with immediate deliverance than long-term restoration, and with God remembering his special Jewish connections, it includes a number of references to Jerusalem, not only mentioning God's city, without specific name, but also using a number of poetic terms for the Temple.26 The additional material contained in the longer version, such as appears in the Sa'adyanic text, does broaden the theological treatment of the subject. The introductory section firmly blames the Jewish exile on the people's sins while bewailing the occupation of the Temple area by other powers and predicates the restoration on the renewal of God's special relations with Israel.27 Later in the prayer, the appeal for a successful hearing is justified by reference to the religious loyalty of the Patriarchs and the vision of the future includes the specific functions of the priests, levites and ordinary Israelites and a summary of the situation by the citation of the last part of Jeremiah 30:18 (understood as 'the Temple will occupy its proper place').

25 Elbogen, G, pp. 132-10; H, pp. 100-105; E, pp. 111-17; Mann, 'Palestinian order of service', pp. 325-32; Jacobson, Netiv Binah, vol. 4.14-27; Fleischer, Eretz-Israel Prayer, pp. 93-159. For fuller sources see n. 13 above.

26 Soferim 19.5 (ed. Higger, p. 327); L. J. Liebreich, 'Aspects of the New Year liturgy', HUCA 34 (1963), pp. 125-31; Hoffman, Canonization (see n. 4 above), pp. 93-100; see also chapter 8 above, on the 'avodah benediction.

27 The alternative formulation, in which stress is not placed on Israel's sins, may reflect the kind of view found in BT, Berakhot 3a which, if the variant readings are carefully examined, appears to imply that God regretted that he had destroyed his Temple and exiled the Jews; see R. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectiones (Diqduqey Soferim) (Munich and Przemysl, 1867-97), I (Munich, 1867), pp. 4-5.




Other prayers

Although the intention here is to concentrate on what may be gleaned from the 'amidah, it should be noted that the theme of restoration also occurs in a number of other ancient rabbinic prayers. It may therefore be helpful to the discussion to make at least brief reference to the contents of some of these before attempting to analyse the data collected and to offer some tentative conclusions. As far as the birkat ha-mazon (grace after meals) is concerned, the simplest formulation would appear to have included a request for God's mercy to be shown to his people Israel, his city Jerusalem, and his Temple. Some texts refer to the cultic centre rather poetically as '"PTn and while others prefer the more prosaic phrase ump.ll VnJH ΓΡ3Π. What appear to be among early additions to the simplest formulation are references to Zion as the glorious habitation and to the Davidic dynasty. Some versions place an emphasis on the secure provision of food while others make a link between that subject and the main theme of the benediction by stressing that the worshippers' consumption of food and drink by no means indicates that they have forgotten the plight of Jerusalem and its need for restoration. In a number of texts, that theme of restoration is spelt out, in some cases after the benediction, with pleas for some or all of the developments that are presupposed by references to the consolation of Zion, to the building of Jerusalem, and to the return there of God's presence and rule, of the Davidic (sometimes specifically described as the messianic) kingdom, of the sacrificial system, and of the joyous Jewish population.28

Account should also be taken of the contents of the nahem (or rohem) prayer, one of the haftarah benedictions, the qaddish and the Passover Haggadah. The first-mentioned, a special prayer formulated in talmudic times for the Ninth of Av and inserted at some point in the 'amidah during one or all of the services to be held on that day, is designed to make specific mention of the fate of Jerusalem. In its simplest form, it first reads very much like the fourteenth benediction

28 Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 12 above), p. 554; Osar Ha-Tefillot (see n. 12 above), pp. 482-85; Heinemann, Prayer (see n. 13 above), Hebrew edition, pp. 73-77, English edition, pp. 113-22; Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 13 above), 3.59-64; Mann, 'Palestinian order of service' (see n. 13 above), pp. 332-38; L. Finkelstein, 'The birkat ha-mazon', ]QR, NS 19 (1928-29), pp. 211-62; A. Scheiber, 'Qit'ey birkat ha-mazon', SRIHP 7 (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958), pp. 147-53; Y. Ratzaby, 'Birkot mazon mefuyyatot, Sinai 113 (1994), pp. 110-33; see chapter 8 above, the section dealing with the grace and the 'amidah. See also Tosefta, Berakhot 3.25, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 9 and n. 19 above; and chapter 18 below.



160 Chapter Nine

itself, craving God's mercy (rather than his compassion) on Israel his people, Jerusalem his city, and Zion his glorious habitation. An additional reference is then made to the ruined city, whose plight is recorded and whose ultimate restoration, as divinely promised, is confidently predicted. As far as the concluding formula is concerned, God is again cited as the builder of Jerusalem, or in more complex manner as either the God of David and the builder of Jerusalem, or the consoler of Zion and the builder of Jerusalem.

The initial word of the second blessing after the prophetic reading also occurs as either am or am and the variant concluding formulas once more contain references to either the consolation of Zion, this time with her children, or to the building of Jerusalem. The city's titles of Jerusalem are here given as ITS? ivx and rra and there is also a call for swift vengeance on behalf of those who have been saddened, presumably by its loss.29 As far as the qaddish is concerned, the version that came to be used at the burial service and at a siyyum ceremony (for concluding the study of a talmudic tractate) goes beyond the simple praise of God and contains a passage of messianic character, probably originating in the early rabbinic academy. Its theme is that God will establish his kingdom, revive the dead, build Jerusalem, reconstruct the Temple and replace heathen ritual with authentic worship.30

Finally, it is interesting to note that the text of the ge'ulah benediction included in the Passover Haggadah (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10.6) also includes a messianic section, in various formulations, which looks forward to the restoration of the Temple and the sacrifices and to the joy to be engendered by that development and by 'the building of your city' ("ITS Ή3). Another version, however, refers more simply to next year's joyous celebration of the Temple service in 'Zion your city' (IT'S "[TV).31

A linguistic analysis of the prayer texts dealt with above reveals factors that are fairly common to most aspects of early rabbinic liturgy as well as a few characteristics that are more specifically relevant to

29 Heinemann, Prayer (see n. 13 above), Hebrew edition, pp. 48-51, English edition, pp. 70-76; see also PT, Berakhot, 4.3 (ed. Krotoschin, f. 8a) and Soferim 13.11 (ed. Higger, p. 247).

30 D. de Sola Pool, The Kaddish (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 79-89; Elbogen, (see n. 13 above), G, pp. 92-98; H, pp. 72-75; E, pp. 80-84; Heinemann, Prayer (see n. 13 above), Hebrew edition, pp. 23, 170-72, English edition, pp. 24-25, 266-68. There is also an interesting anthology in D. Telsner, The Kaddish: Its History and Significance, ed. G. A. Sivan (Jerusalem, 1995) and some useful insights in L. Wieseltier, Kaddish (New York, 1998).

31 Mishnah, Pesahim 10:6, ed. E. Baneth (Berlin, 1927), p. 254, and the footnotes provided there; E. D. Goldschmidt, The Passover Haggadah: Its Sources and History (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 56-57.




particular pieces.32 The vocabulary, grammar and spelling are those regularly found in the standard rabbinic liturgy originating in the talmudic period and are distinct from their equivalents in Biblical Hebrew. Some wording is borrowed from the Hebrew Bible but this is done by way of direct quotation in only a limited proportion of cases.33

More usually, the material derived from the biblical books or parallel to texts to be found there has its own rabbinic flavour and is well integrated into the overall liturgical style and format.34 There are instances in which a substantial part of a biblical verse is included within a particular prayer without being identified through the use of an introductory phrase such as mriDD or imfo.35 Some formulations tend to be poetic, others resemble the style of a litany, while there are also cases in which simple prose predominates.36 There are variations among the versions in the tenses and conjugations of verbs, the choice of roots, and the use of epithets, and these have not traditionally been regarded as of major significance to the exegesis of the prayers.

Three concepts

It will now be appropriate to identify three central concepts of restoration as they occur in the material just analysed. According to the first, the process is one by which God is expected to correct the inadequacies, inequalities, injustices, abnormalities and discomforts of life through his miraculous powers, including crrmn rrnn, but without reference to precisely when or in which epoch this will occur. The restoration of the dead to life is at an early stage of rabbinic prayer considered central enough for it to be given a place, even a primary place, among the divine corrections being requested. Belonging to this kind of notion, which may be defined as more immediate and mundane, are those prayers that see the future of the diaspora, the Temple, Jerusalem, the holy land, and the Jewish people with its major

32 C. Rabin, 'The historical background of Qumran Hebrew' in Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 144-61, with a later Hebrew version published in Qoves Ma'amarim Bilshon Hz"/, vol. 1, ed. M. Bar-Asher (2 vols; Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 355-82, and 'The linguistic investigation of the language of Jewish prayer' in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, eds J. J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer (Jerusalem and Cincinnati, 1981), Hebrew section, pp. 163-71; A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1972), especially pp. 36-63.

33 See e.g. the phrases rrnai rra» in text no. 1 above and niWSl^o uosiw ητ»η in text no. 3 above.

34 Compare e.g. the formulation of text no. 2 above with Isaiah 11:12. 35 A good example is the phrase tosim 'W paiNi at the end of text no. 7 above, which

is borrowed from Jeremiah 30:18. 36 Contrast the varying styles of texts nos. 2-3, 4 and 6 above.



162 Chapter Nine

institutions and leadership, in terms of improvements on their current state and restorations of what is regarded as the authentic norm. Also to be included in this genre are prayers that request the removal of suffering and sorrow, whether of the personal or the national variety.

A second understanding of the idea of restoration that can be identified among the standard rabbinic prayers concerns the relationship between God and Israel. The idea is that God should re-establish the warm relations he once enjoyed with Israel, should remove the subjugation which they are currently experiencing, and should re-impose on them the direct, divine rule to which they were subject in earlier times. A kind of imitatio dei works here in reverse, God providing the quality leadership and authority that is acutely required by Israel. Emphasis is placed on the efficacy of Israel's worship and the restoration of God's presence to Zion. In spite of their past sins, divine favour is restored to Israel, perhaps as an acknowledgement of the merits of the eponymous ancestors, and stress is laid on the principle of God's exclusive right to worship.

It is a prophetic, messianic and poetic message that pervades the third notion of restoration found in the liturgical texts examined above. God's power will be gloriously made manifest to the whole world and his eternal rule will be universally established and acknowledged. Heathen control and worship will be eradicated and Israel's suffering at their hands will be avenged. The Jews will be gathered from the four corners of the earth and ceremoniously restored to Zion where the Temple and its detailed ritual will be reinstated in their pristine form. The festal pilgrimages, with all their joy, will be restored to the rebuilt city of Jerusalem and the priests, levites and common people will fully perform their religious obligations there.

In connection with this third approach, which may justifiably be described as having a predominantly ascetic character, it is perhaps relevant to note the existence in the latter part of the geonic age of special prayers and biblical verses recited by pilgrims on their visits to Jerusalem. Recent research, especially by Reiner, Fleischer and Ben-Shammai, has added significantly to our knowledge of the ceremony and the recitations that accompanied each part of the approach to the holy city, the circumambulation of its walls, and the final arrival at the Temple Mount. The ritual may be traced in both Rabbanite and Karaite circles, and it would appear that it was the 'Mourners of Zion' who instituted the practice. Locals and pilgrims participated in ceremonies in the course of which they recited the book of Lamentations and other poems that bemoaned the loss of Jerusalem and the Temple and expressed sorrow about their current state. The biblical verses recited at each gate were chosen to match its name and the special prayers and




supplications were added to these verses only at the first and last 'stations'. Some of these were known from other liturgical contexts and took the form of benedictions, and poetic items were also used, in one case borrowed from the mystical hekhalot texts.37 Whether such data permit us to conclude, maximally, that such texts in their turn had an influence on the choice of the wording of the regular prayers, or, minimally, that they do no more than reflect another aspect of the ascetic tendency just noted, remains a moot point. What is beyond doubt is that they occupy an important place in Jewish liturgical responses to the possible restoration of the Holy City.

It would considerably ease the task of the historian of religious ideas if it could confidently be stated that each of the three themes just described appears in a particular benediction, or originates at a specific date in an identifiable place, or is championed by a special individual or group. Not only does the oral and literary history of the early rabbinic liturgy, as previously discussed, rule this out. Even the division into three such themes is in itself something of a subjective and speculative exercise. One has to admit that the notions overlap, that there is a lack of clarity about the process of addition and omission, and that those responsible for the developments remain largely anonymous. Particularly in the liturgical field, matters must be viewed synchronically as well as diachronically, since the moves may not be consistently in one direction but may at times take one step forward before taking two steps back. In addition, there are instances in which the same words have been interpreted in significantly different ways by various generations. References to Davidic rule, to the holy city and to divine worship did not necessarily convey the same concepts to the Jews of every centre and in each century. Nevertheless, it may confidently be concluded that the standard rabbinic prayers in their totality include all three themes and that the widespread textual, linguistic and theological variations testify to a dynamic process of development, though not one that displays one consistent tendency. It seems likely that this process was affected by the history of the Jewish people as it evolved from epoch to epoch and from centre to centre. Social, political and religious ideas undoubtedly left their mark on the texts of the prayers and, while the nature of such marks are identifiable, the details of their arrival and departure remain obscure in the early

37 E. Reiner, 'Concerning the Priest Gate and its location', Tarbiz 56 (1987), pp. 279-90; E. Fleischer, 'Pilgrims' prayer and the gates of Jerusalem', in Mas'at Moshe: Studies in Jewish and Islamic Culture Presented to Moshe Gil, eds E. Fleischer, M. A. Friedman and J. A. Kraemer (Hebrew; Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1998), pp. 298-327; and H. Ben-Shammai, Ά unique lamentation on Jerusalem by the Karaite author Yeshu'a ben Judah' in the same Gil Festschrift, pp. 93-102; and see chapter 13 below.



164 Chapter Nine

centuries of the first Christian millennium. What may be suggested for at least some periods is that, as the idea of restoration became less confidently and expeditiously expected, so it tended to be expressed progressively more in the language of the Utopian visionary.

